[JJF3]

Looks like S 659 (The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) is about to hit the Senate floor for debate. The antis are really steamed over this and will do anything underhanded to stop it. For one, there's the treat of a fillibuster and/or attaching anti-gun amendments to the bill.

A counter offensive is in order. Stopping any further infringement of our RKBA is a must... never allow the antis an inch of ground.



Brady/MMM: Stop Gun Industry Immunity Legislation!
11/3/2003
We have been fighting against S. 659, dangerous special interest legislation that would take away the legal rights of gun violence victims and give sweeping legal immunity from lawsuits to the gun industry -- immunity that no other industry enjoys. On Friday, two versions of this legislation, with new bill numbers, were introduced: S. 1805 and S. 1806. But whatever the bill number, this legislation remains an outrageous and unfair attack on gun violence victims.
The Republican leadership is considering bringing this legislation up for a vote as early as this week, and we must keep the pressure on! We will concentrate our next call-in day this coming Tuesday, November 4 during the same hour nationwide to maximize the impact and to make it easier for all of us to participate. Please save the hour of 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM EST on Tuesday, November 4 to make these important calls. If you cannot call during the allotted hour it is still important that you still make calls at some time on Tuesday.

More can be found here...

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,567495,00.html

*********

Note that it's now two new bills with different numbers: S 1805 and S 1806


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.01805:

MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--S. 1805 and S. 1806 -- (Senate - November 03, 2003)
[Page: S13837] GPO's PDF ---

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk that are due a second reading.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The clerk will report the titles of the bills.

The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S . 1805 ) to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
A bill (S. 1806) to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

Mr. McCONNELL. I object en bloc to further proceedings on these measures at this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the rule, the bills will be placed on the calendar.

 

[Mus]

Why is it two bills now?

 

[JJF3]

Why is it two bills now?

I have no idea. More than likely at least one of them has to do with Tom Daschle's changes to the original bill.

 

[Mus]

Maybe. I skimmed them both and they seemed identical. Very strange.

 

[Battler]

Daschle wants to keep an "alleged" strawman sale lawsuits alive.

The original bill means you can't be sued for a third party using a gun in a crime because you sold it.

Remember, these lawsuits are just meant to cost the defendant money.

The Daschle version will still allow the same lawsuits to occur : That is, you can still sue ALLEGING that the dealer didn't cross his Ts, or that he made a strawman sale. True or not, it'll cost you a bazillion defending against each one.

 

[Mus]

Ok that was probably a one or two line difference. Thats what I missed. Basically Daschles version makes it useless. Anyone could allege a strawman purchase at any time. Just defending has been the problem and this would change nothing. No big suprise there. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Tapper]

S1805 has these >>>until<<< sections, S1806 does not:
OK lawyers, what's this mean??
Sec4.,(5),(A)
(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violated a State or Federal
statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--

>>>(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law;

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any person
in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to
the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(III) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other
person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable
cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing
or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or of section 922 of title 18,
United States Code;<<<

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or

(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable.

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment'means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

>>>(C) REASONABLY FORESEEABLE- As used in subparagraph (A)(v), the term `reasonably
foreseeable' does not include any criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product, other than possessory offenses.

(D) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The exceptions described in subparagraph (A) shall be construed so as not to be in conflict and no provision of this Act shall be construed to create a Federal private cause of action or remedy.<<<

 

[Battler]

Right - as long as anyone can INSTIGATE a civil lawsuit, such that the gunmaker/gun seller has to spend a PENNY defending themselves, the antis win.

The antis can sue them with taxpayer money. They don't have to "win" the suit, they win the suit simply through forcing the other guy to show.

There are probably a lot of other technicalities that a gun lawsuit anti can use to bring about a civil case - even going so far as to accuse them of something blatantly false.

You can still sue gunmaker/gun dealer X of not filling out a yellow form - it would STILL cost them money to defend themselves, which is the goal.

 

[DanDean316]

Done.

Senator Dayton and Senator Coleman were contacted.